METADATA

Title: From Markers to Moves: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Interactional Metadiscourse Across Cultures and Disciplines  

 

Vol. 13(3), 2025, pp. 162-182

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46687/AYBL2908  

 

Author: Ghada Ali AlGhamdi

About the author: Ghada Ali AlGhamdi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Language and Translation at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Her research interests include contrastive rhetoric, metadiscourse, systemic functional linguistics, and corpus linguistics. She currently serves as an Assistant Editor for the Journal of Research in Language and Translation at King Saud University.

E-mail: galghamdi@ksu.edu.sa                   

ORCID:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2468-4657

 

Link: http://silc.fhn-shu.com/issues/2025-3/SILC_2025_Vol_13_Issue_3_162-182_21.pdf

Citation (APA): AlGhamdi, G. A. (2025). From Markers to Moves: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Interactional Metadiscourse Across Cultures and Disciplines. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 13(3), 162-182. https://doi.org/10.46687/AYBL2908

 

Abstract: The number of ‘marker’ approaches in metadiscourse (MD) studies greatly outnumbers the number of ‘move’ approaches. This has highlighted the focus on small units of analysis, especially word-based categorizations, such as classifying the pronoun “I” as self-mention. Following a contrasting ‘move’ approach, this overview offers a more contextualized and functional analysis of interactional discourse strategies in academic writing. A taxonomy of metadiscursive functions is developed through a critical synthesis of existing MD taxonomies and theoretical frameworks, shifting the focus from surface markers to rhetorical moves. The framework was developed in light of 90 research articles (RAs) written in English by Anglophone and Arab Academic English writers in political science, law, and journalism. This paper also examines an under-researched aspect of MD, namely interactional MD, which is categorized into stance and engagement. In addition to revealing disciplinary and cultural patterns in authorial stance-taking and audience engagement, the proposed move-based approach offers pedagogical value for EAP/ESP instruction. In this overview, a paradigm shift in understanding interactions in academic writing is proposed, especially in cross-cultural and disciplinary contexts.

Keywords: cross-cultural academic writing, engagement, metadiscourse, move analysis, stance

 

References:

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Ädel, A. (2021). Reflections on reflexivity in digital communication: Towards a third wave of metadiscourse studies. In A. Ädel & R. Reppen (Eds.), Metadiscourse in digital communication: New research, approaches and methodologies (pp. 37–64). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85814-8_3

Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215 

Alghamdi, G. A. (2025). Exploring the construction of academic authorial presence within diverse disciplinary and cultural contexts. Discourse and Interaction, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2025-2-29

Alghamdi, G. A., & Alyousef, H. S. (2022). The construction of knowledge claims in three disciplines: An exploration of hedging and boosting strategies in research articles written in English by Arab and Anglophone writers. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12363 

Alyousef, H. S., & Alotaibi, N. E. Q. (2019). Self-mention markers and their rhetorical functions in dentistry research articles: A corpus-based study of intradisciplinary variations within seven dentistry subdisciplines. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.136 

Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes: Review of ELT, 1(2), 1–12. Modern English Publications.

Bondi, M. (2008). Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools. In A. Ädel & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings (pp. 31–55). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.31.04bon

Camiciottoli, B. C. (2008). Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1216-1231.

Dueñas, P. M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x 

Furko, P. (2017). Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.54 

Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218–231). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_14

Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Hasan, E., & Alsout, E. (2023). A pragmatic approach to the rhetorical analysis and the metadiscourse markers of research article abstracts in the field of applied linguistics. Discourse and Interaction, 16(2), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2023-2-51

Hasan, E. K., & Hadoud, D. M. (2022). A rhetorical move analysis and metadiscourse of abstracts in graduation projects written by Libyan students: A case study in Gharyan University. Journal of the Faculty of Arts, Gharyan University, 20(88), 88–112.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609427

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 

Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54

Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5 

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00025-2 

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350037939.0028 

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2002b). ‘What do they mean? Questions in academic writing’, Text, 22(4), 529-557. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021 

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007 

Hyland, K., & Paltridge, B. (2011). The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis. Bloomsbury.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl 

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Jakobson, R. (1990). The speech event and the functions of language. In L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), On language (pp. 69–79). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1960)

Koester, A., & Handford, M. (2012). Spoken professional genres. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 252–267). Routledge.

Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719

Liu, C., & Tseng, M.-Y. (2021). Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.002 

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation (Vol. 2). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-i 

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for specific purposes, 31(3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002 

Moreno, A. I., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function–form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006 

Muñoz, M. C. (2013). The “I” in interaction: Authorial presence in academic writing. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 8(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1162

Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444804002216

Swales, J. M. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00009-5 

Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(96)00022-1 

Thomson, J. J. (2021). Metadiscourse in upper secondary English essays: Exploring genres in L1 and L2 educational contexts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Stavanger). University of Stavanger.